Posted 5 years ago
Golgatha
(212 items)
A year ago I made a posting about this small genre painting. Oil on grey tinted mahogany board. 22.5 cm x 17.5 cm x 1.0 cm. The frame is new. The girl's dress points to about 1890-1900. Possibly signed with a clover. I asked if you knew the artist. Apparently nobody did. In the meantime a theory has come up. If the clover is in fact a signature, then could the artist be American artist Lewis Peter Clover (1819-1896) ? I don't know much about his work, but maybe you can either reject or confirm the theory ?
Based on the meager information available to me, it doesn't look like your painting is by Lewis Peter Clover, but I will do some more research. He apparently signed his works with a signature, based on the only example that I could find of his work:
https://tinyurl.com/vm6v53k
My art reference books are buried in storage, so I can't get to them.
In over 20 years of collecting paintings, I've owned or looked at the works of thousands of artists and never encountered an artist who signed solely with something other than a monogram or signature, if they signed their work. Sometimes the signature is very stylized but, always based on some type of alphabet. In a very few instances I've found artists that used things like their fingerprint or some other symbol but they also used a signature on monogram in addition. That being said, the nature of art is creative and I have no doubt there have been artists who signed creatively.
Thanks kwqd for your answer. One signature on a drawing is, as you say, a meager background for identifying a painter. The clover in the carpet seems to me to be without any connection to the carpet design. That's why I suspected it to be a symbol signature and here Lewis Peter Clover came into my mind. But I' m most certainly open for better suggestions !
There were numerous artists with the first or last name of Clover, so you probably need to widen your search.
https://www.askart.com/Search.aspx?ArtistSearch=clover
That being said, many artists painted exactly what they saw. This might not be the representation of a clover, at all. If examined closely, there appears to be some reflection of light off of the object. Since a child is pictured, this may actually be a toy, perhaps a ball? Or some type of bag?
It is frustrating when artists don't sign their work. It has caused me much trouble and speculation. On the other hand, it can be seen as a sign the artist had confidence that their work could stand on its own without attribution. In other instances artists did not sign their work because it was not up to their normal standard, was a sketch or a preliminary practice work for a later work. Each example has its own mysteries.
Thanks kwqd for your answers. Feel free to suggest possible candidates based on the subject, style, technique, colours etc. The only thing I'm relatively sure about is the age, based on the girl's dress: 1890-1900.
Would it be possible to get another image without the glare on the left side?
Maybe I am missing something, again. I don't even see a clover in these photos. I was starting to think that you were referring to the ball, under the paper that she dropped on the floor. Sorry if I am missing the signature in this nice painting.
That paper on the floor is resting on a toy or ball with a red clover type decoration on it. A piece of paper would not remain in that position without something under it. Just a thought.
Thanks for the answers. Now I'm confused at a higher level.